Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
MOHD. MEHBOOB ALAM & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A. 396, 417/2011
Decided On : 17.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Adv., Ms. Alpana Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for the State with SI Vijay Singh, P.S. Civil Lines
The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of conviction under Section 307 with the aid of Section 34 of IPC based on the victim's testimony and the modification of the sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
Headnote:
Attempt to Kill - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 307, Section 34 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellants under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempting to kill Ramesh Bahadur (PW7) by means of a knife. The court affirmed the conviction under Section 307 with the aid of Section 34 of IPC and modified the sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempting to kill Ramesh Bahadur (PW7) by means of a knife. The victim suffered serious injuries and the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no reason to disbelieve the victim's testimony and affirmed the conviction under Section 307 with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. The sentence imposed on the appellants was modified and reduced based on mitigating circumstances.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the presence of eye witnesses, and the motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that motive does not play a relevant role in a criminal case and affirmed the conviction based on the victim's testimony. The sentence was modified considering mitigating circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the sentence imposed on the appellants was modified and reduced to the period of custody which they had already undergone.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR , J.
1. Both the Appeals have been heard together and a common judgment is being delivered.
2. The appellants impugn the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.11.2010/ 24.11.2010 whereby they have been convicted under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, fine of rupees 10,000/- and in default SI for one month.
3. The appellants have been charged for attempting to kill Ramesh Bahadur (PW7) by means of knife. Ramesh Bahadur, injured (PW7) has deposed that on 20.08.2009 while he was coming to ISBT from Jahangir Puri on a public conveyance, the appellants met him on the way as they also boarded the same vehicle from Azad Market. The appellants are stated to have asked Ramesh Bahadur (PW7) to join them for drinks. After initial reluctance, PW7 along with the appellants got down from the bus at the red light of Baraf Khana. Appellant Mehboob purchased a bottle of liquor for which money was given by appellant Salim. PW7 admits to have been intoxicated. Appellant Salim asked PW.7 whether he was willing to work with him. PW7 refused such a proposal as appellant Salim and his associate had criminal background.
4. PW 7 has stated that he and Appellant Salim came on the road with their hand clasped together. It is alleged that at that time, appellant Mehboob gave a knife blow in his abdomen. The blade portion of the knife remained inside his stomach whereas the butt of the knife was left behind in the hand of Appellant Mehboob. The appellants, ignoring the entreaties of PW 7 of reaching him to the hospital, ran away from the place of occurrence. PW7 became unconscious and regained his consciousness in the Trauma Center where his statement was recorded by the police.
5. Ramesh Bahadur PW7 remained in the hospital for one month.
6. Ruby Kumari (PW1) has deposed that on 20.08.2009 while she was posted as casualty medical officer in Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, she examined one unknown patient brought by Constable Vijay (PW15) with the history of Patient being found on road side near Ashoka Market. The patient was drowsy and was responding poorly to the commands. He had a stab injury in his abdomen. After resuscitation measures, she referred the patient to a surgery specialist for further management. The MLC (Ex. PW1/A) was proved by PW1.
7. Dr. JK Basu (PW8) CMO, Sushruta Trauma Centre, has proved the complete case file (Ex. PW8/A) of PW7 which indicated that PW7 was operated by Dr. Mrinal (PW20) and Dr. Gaurav, Senior Residents of the Hospital.
8. From the testimony of Ruby Kumari, (PW1), Dr. JK Basu (PW8) and Dr. Mrinal (PW20), it stands established that Ramesh Bahadur (PW7) suffered serious injuries in his stomach by means of knife.
9. Ramesh Bahadur (PW7) has categorically deposed about the appellants being the perpetrators of the crime. He claims to know them from 6 months prior to the incident.
10. PW7 has denied the suggestion that after coming out from jail in connection with some case, he stayed at the house of Appellant Mehboob where some dispute had erupted forcing him to leave the house.
11. Head Constable Sube Singh (PW13) has testified to the fact that on pointing out of a secret informer appellant Mebhoob was apprehended from the first floor of the house in Vijay Colony. At the same time appellant Salim also came there and he too was arrested (Arrest memo Ex PW13/A and PW13/B).
12. Rajender Singh, ASI (PW2) has deposed that he was in-charge of PCR van and on being instructed from the control room, he reached Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital and removed PW7 (Injured) to Trauma Center.
13. The deposition of witnesses during trial clearly made out a case against the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC.
14. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC. for short), the appellants denied their participation in the crime and claimed false implication because of old enmity.
15. Appellant Sal
